Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mendip Hills


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:11, 12 May 2007.

Mendip Hills
This article was a previous FAC nomination & recieved some useful comments - which have all been addressed, however it didn't receive enough support within the time allowed. It remains a comprehensive and stable article supported but appropriate citations, which I believe meets the FA criteria.&mdash; Rod talk 22:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Comment Nice work Rodw. I think those pictures could be slightly larger, and alternated left and right within their sections. There are also still a few seemingly unsourced statements dotted around as well, it would be wise to add inline citations to those. (Beautiful part of the

world by the way.)-- Z leitzen (talk)  02:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The images are autothumbed, which is recommended by the WP:MoS. You can set the thumbnail size in special:preferences =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, that map is very small on default mode, an aspect covered in the MoS. And the MoS also recommends alternating the formation of pics somewhat. Of the unsourced statements, the info in the Demographics section could do with sourcing, the info on Wookey Hole seems unsourced and the Walking section lacks citations. Given that the Monarch's Way article gives a different distance to that section for the route, it could do with being sorted out with WP:RS. -- Z leitzen (talk)  16:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Response I have rearranged the images, checked & changed the length of the Monarchs way & added citations where requested.&mdash; Rod talk 21:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Comment  I leave it to you whether you follow my suggestion: as you say, it may not be necessary as there are only 3 books.  Congratulations on producing & maintaining an excellent article.   --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be neater, and certainly more convenient for the reader, to split the References into two parts, as is increasingly the practice on WP:


 * 1) Notes: the footnotes proper; and
 * 2) References: alphabetical bibliography

The Notes can then refer succinctly to the bibliography whenever necessary, giving page numbers (eg "Barrington and Stanton (1977):35"). In every other respect this is a first-class article: it reads well, and it's both comprehensive and attractively presented. Rod has dealt with all my editorial comments patiently, courteously and efficiently. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 16:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Response I don't quite understand your comment. All of the references are used in the article & cited with numbers as they appear. There is no seperate bibliography of other sources. Could you point me to an example or something from WP:MOS or other guidelines so that I could make the changes suggested? Otherwise thanks for the supportive comments.&mdash; Rod talk 17:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I was being a bit cryptic! Have a look at this section of the article on footnotes (the para beginning "Consider maintaining ...").  That section in turn refers to Citing sources, in which you might pay particular attention to this.


 * A good example of how this works in practice is the FA Johannes Kepler. Thankfully, you don't have nearly so many sources; but the same principle applies—and it makes it much easier for the reader to find the sources at a glance.  But when all's said & done this isn't mandatory: it's more a question of personal taste.  It's really more a matter of formatting than of substance.  If you're happy with the referencing as it is, that's fine. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * PS My remarks may have only limited relevance to this article, because the majority of the sources are online. However, three of the books referred to (Barrington, Toulson & Coysh) are referenced twice: using the system I've described you could give specific page numbers for each separate (NB spelling!) reference. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Response OK I see what you mean now. I'm not sure how useful this would be for the 3 books cited in this article, but I will be returning to the library this weekend & will try to get the relevant books again & add the page numbering as suggested. I note that in the guidelines this is generally put as "It can be helpful" & similar words rather than being a requirement.&mdash; Rod talk 14:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Support A deserving candidate for FA status. SP-KP 08:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Footnotes are not formatted to a full and consistent biblio style.  Sources need to specify publisher, author and publication date where available, and last access date on all websource.  See WP:CITE/ES or use the cite templates.  Also, there is every possible form of mistaken use of WP:DASH.  External links should be pruned per WP:NOT (not a tour guide).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Response Sandy thanks for your comments. Could you give an example of where you feel the footnotes do not include a "full and consistent biblio style" as I have tried hard to use the appropriate templates and include as much information as possible. I will check the WP:DASH as these have been changed 3 or 4 times during the peer review process. I will also look at the external links (most of which have been added by others) to prevent it being a tour guide.&mdash; Rod talk 15:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me know when you're finished, and I can doublecheck the dashes. I will do a few sample edits now on the footnotes, so you can see the missing info.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Dashes and External links look good now. Let me know when you're finished with footnotes; I left sample edits. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Response Wow thank you for all your work on this. I see what you mean now. I think part of the problem was "cite web" which uses "work" rather than "publisher". You seem to have done all the format ones for me but is there a similar "format" for word documents? I've gone through & added dates of publication where they are included on the pdfs (many don't have them). I can't find ISBNs for Gough, J.W. & Johnson, Peter - both are from 1967 & there is no ISBN on the book or on Amazon. If there is anything else you feel is needed let me know & I've now realised I need to go back to some of the other articles I've written & do the same process! &mdash; Rod talk 08:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty good; I'm striking my oppose. I did still see some instances of the "work" parameter used in place of "publisher", which causes the publisher to italicize.  In most standard citation formats, book names, encyclopedia names, and newspaper names are italicized, but other publishers are not, so perhaps you can review those for consistency.  Also, the text is squished between the infobox and the first image (in Geology) on my browser; maybe you can find a better way to place those images to avoid the text squeeze?  If you have downloadable word docs, I think the parameter to use in the cite templates is format = doc.  Thanks for the fast work !  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Conditional support:
 * The infobox gives its length and width as 30km by 10km, which I guess means the Yeo/Chew valley is considered the northern boundary. I didn't see any mention of the valley as being the northern boundary, though, and there doesn't seem to be a reference for a definition of the area -- the AONB is officially defined, but is there any authoritative definition of the hills as a whole?
 * Following on from the first point, the Mendips are hard to define because they don't stand on their own, there are additional nearly contigious limestone hills going north: Dundry, Bristol (Avon Gorge, etc) and the Cotsworlds. Is it worth briefly mentioning these in the geology section, and saying whether they are part of the same formation, or of different ages/composition?  This is just a suggestion, I'm not going to fail the article over this.
 * Infobox -> Location -> Coordinates: 1:10,000 doesn't seem an appropriate scale for an area of this size. I'd change it myself, but I'm not familiar with the template parameters. 1:100,000 is probably more like it.
 * Fixed. The Geobox sets the scale to 1:1,000 by default. It can easily be changed by adding an (unfortunatelly undocumented yet) additional parameter coordinates_type which can accept any parameter from WikiProject Geographical coordinates. I chnged it to the suggested 1:100,000. – Caroig (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There are a few very short paragraphs, which could perhaps be merged. The demographics section, for example, doesn't appear to need a paragraph break in the middle of it.  Again, just a suggestion, I don't think it's a big enough issue for failing.
 * Thanks, Joe D (t) 09:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Response Thanks for the comments. I agree it is hard to define as it doesn't follow local authority boundaries etc & the proposal (mentioned in the article) to expand the AONB doesn't make it clear either. I have asked User:Geologyguy to comment on the limetstone hills to the north & the relationship. I have asked User:Caroig about the scale in the "geobox" as he created them & knows how to fiddle with the parameters. I have combined the short paras in the demographics section.&mdash; Rod talk 10:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Support an article I have read repeatedly and learned from. My only comment is the use of compass directions without a space e.g. southwest rather than south west, which I personally do not like. Whatever style is chosen its use should be consistent. --Cheesy Mike 09:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Response Thanks I have changed the southwest to south west (where I can spot them) & removed "-" to make it consistent but I can't find anything on this in the manual of style.&mdash; Rod talk 10:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. A readable and informative article, with just about the right weighting given to each section. I had a quick edit of the Geology section (the only one I'm qualified to comment on...) just to tidy up the chronology of events, reduce the degree of assumed knowlege, and eradicate a touch of repetition. Pyrope 10:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Object—1a. Needs fresh eyes to copy-edit the whole text, not just to correct these random examples from the top.
 * "The Mendip Hills (commonly called The Mendips) are a range of limestone hills (karst) situated to the south of Bristol and Bath in north Somerset, England." Remove the redundant word for a much nicer opening.
 * "The hills run east to west between Weston-super-Mare and Frome, and overlook the Somerset Levels to the south, and the Avon valley to the north." Better as this, to avoid three ands and a comma: "Running east to west between Weston-super-Mare and Frome, the Hills overlook the Somerset Levels to the south and the Avon valley to the north."
 * When I read a humdinger like this at the top, I lose interest. "The hills are largely carboniferous limestone, which is quarried at several sites. The higher western part of the Mendip Hills, have been designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), measuring approximately 200 km² (80 mi²):, which gives the area the same level of protection as a national park." Why the familiar "The hills" first, and the fully rendered "the Mendip Hills" later? Remove "approximately" (see MoS on this). Fix the punctuation glitch, oh dear. Better "... (AONB); the area is 200 km² (80 mi²), which gives it the same level of protection as a national park." Tony 01:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Response thanks for your comments, which I have acted on. I may have become too close to see the wood for the trees and would welcome any further copyediting, but I wouldn't have described the problems you identified as a "humdinger". If you culd help with your "fresh eyes" that would be great.&mdash; Rod talk 07:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support.Excellent article, should definitely be a featured article Mick Knapton 06:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Rejoinder—sorry, I don't copy-edit FACs. The task is to locate other people to collaborate; this is one of the most important aspects of contributing to WP. Start with the edit-history pages of similar articles, especially FAs. Identify those who've made major copy-editing contributions (by reading the edit summaries and using the compare edits function). Show them you're familiar with their work, and ask for help with this one. You need to network in this way, and expect to be asked to help on other articles if they do you a favour. Tony 09:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.